Talk:Fox hunting

Cub Hunting
How is this affected by the ban? The article implies it is currently practiced. 98.182.139.2 (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Animal cruelty
"Fox hunting" a banned illegal activity is "animal cruelty", it belongs to that category. My categorising so was reverted. The practise has been described as being incompatible in a civilised and compassionate country, it has been called that penalties should be no different than badger baiting, cock fighting or dog fighting, activities in which pleasure is gained from inflicting pain to animals. It is being indulged by those described as criminals and yet who are unrepentant of such deeds. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * That is a point of view, and POV editing is not permitted. You can stick to describing facts, but tagging articles as part of 'animal cruelty' reflects a particular bias. The opposing arguments are well described in the article.  I have also placed the whole category for review as being POV. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 13:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a banned criminal activity considered so because of the cruelty involved, that is the consensus. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Not proven on any count. Some types are banned, others are not, and that is only in one country - it is not banned in many countries. There is far from consensus on whether it is cruel, with opposing literature on both counts, and no academic consensus. There are many things with articles on here which some people claim to be cruel, but WP does not seek to make judgement. For instance, PETA was founded on the basis that even keeping a pet or riding a horse was cruel, but that is far from a consensus opinion.  Similarly, the cultural norms vary across the world, and many people consider dancing bears and bull fighting to be legitimate entertainment and not cruel, and groups argue both for and against fishing.  Even in these cases, WP should not be prescriptive about whether it is or is not cruel, but should describe both sides of the argument.  For this reason, I didn't revert the category of 'blood sports', as that is descriptive.  A category describing it as cruelty, however, is clearly editorialised POV. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 13:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * (1)The article says that "foxes are chased and not killed" in US, it has a French citation for its practise in other countries. Could you provide a translation for that (assuming you've put it) (2) Do you say that if the article was "Fox hunting in the United Kingdom" you would have agreed to the "Animal cruelty" category. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "Bull fighting" is categorised "Animal cruelty" and "bear dancing" as "Animal rights". Would you remove those categories too? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I would remove the 'animal cruelty' category entirely, as it is inherently POV, and I have started the process to do this at the category discussion board. As for animal rights, that is slightly more descriptive, and whilst its not a strictly neutral term, it is descriptive of the subject.  Animal cruelty is just like having a category called "Things which are evil" - its very subjective, and there would be no consensus on whether to include certain articles (does the Pope get that category or not?).  OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 14:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yogesh, categories need to be descriptive, not POV-pushing. Owain's example of fishing is a great example; cruelty?  Fox hunting?  Well, compared to what?  Hunting any animal in general?  killing foxes by fur trapping?  Letting overpopulated foxes die of disease and mange?  I think it's best to keep to the neutral terms, "blood sport" is a longstanding term and whether you favor or oppose it, both sides agree as to its accuracy.   Montanabw (talk) 19:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * @Yogesh Khandke I think it is terribly disingenuous to argue that the British law banning foxhunting was not based on animal cruelty. Of course it was about cruelty. The legislative record and transcripts specifically use the word and also discuss the unnecessary suffering of foxes. The debate covered the usual "pro" considerations, such as tradition and culture. People also discussed the merits of culling foxes as agricultural pests or helping reduce fox starvation and mange. But the law passed because there was sufficient and long-term opposition to a *sport* where people gather a horde of dogs to chase a fox across the countryside and rip the exhausted fox to shreds.  The animal cruelty issue was, and is, paramount and therefore is properly discussed in the Wikipedia article. It is not pushing a POV. It is acknowledging the reality at the heart of the issue. Jacqline8 (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Did I create the category? Isn't "fox hunting" which isn't the same as hunting foxes banned in UK for being cruel? The only argument that sticks imo is that the article doesn't refer to the "sport" as practised in Britain (now illegally) but has an international scope. For that too would Owain.davis kindly submit citations? All the other arguments are unnecessary (and so I won't reply to them) imo as we don't decide whether fishing, or dairy or the pork industry with its gestation crates or the practise of riding into forests with hounds who then shred a fox to pieces and then triumphantly posing with the carcass is cruelty or not. If any activity is banned for being cruel, I opine that it can be categorised as such. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "Cruel" is definitely a POV. There are people who would sincerely claim any activity involving, using, consuming, farming, containing or making loud noises near animals is cruel.  Trying to decide where on the spectrum to apply that category cannot be done in a neutral way.Tangledweb (talk) 18:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The UK bans a lot of stuff that is not banned in other western nations, so there is room for opinion and cultural discussions. I don't think that trapping foxes is banned in the UK, is it? Aren't farmers allowed to remove "varmits" from their land, somehow? I personally think that at its root, the foxhunting ban in the UK was more a reaction related to class-consciousness there than a "cruelty" issue.  My point is that the ethical "cruelty" debate is different from a legal debate.  For example, I personally think ear-cropping is cruel, and it is (I think) banned in the UK but not the USA, but I acknowledge that this is just my opinion, and I can provide source materials on health issues, pain issues, etc., but on WP I still have to phrase things neutrally and simply state the facts. I'm not going to rant about it on WP. (that's what facebook is for, after all!) ;)  Montanabw (talk) 19:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm against declawing cats, per such statements as this but I was really surprised to see a list of countries that have banned it outright (almost all, except Brazil! in Europe). Seems very culturally based. The whole horse meat uproar was also surprising, when in some countries (like Mexico) horses are a valid food item. As Whoopi Goldberg said, all depends on how hungry you are. Star767 23:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that empathy like pain tolerance is an individual trait. My argument is that if an activity is banned for "cruelty" then it can be categorised as cruel in the context of that country. If anyone thinks that "fox trapping" is cruel and there is a Wikipedia article for that, they are free to categorise that article that way. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There are several citations in the article for its international credentials, but describes the practice in the UK (along with the legal restrictions - it isn't banned, just restricted), and other major practicing nations, so I'm not sure what point you're getting at. Montana is, as usual, quite correct that killing foxes is not illegal with one or two dogs (but not three), nor is using hounds to flush the fox to guns/birds of prey etc.  The examples provided above are excellent, things like declawing, debarking, ear croppping and tail docking are all practices that are banned in parts of the world (and all banned in the UK, with limited exceptions), but perfectly acceptable in others.  Cruelty is subjective, and it is near impossible to find any practice which does not have defenders who claim that it is a valid and compassionate sport (see things like bull fighting and charreada for good examples). The debate is still on over the category, and you can of course join in (it's in the Category discussion forum for the 4th April), but it looks like the consensus might be to rename the category to avoid this type of POV. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 19:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * (1)What isn't subjective? That is why we have the process of consensus. (2) "Fox hunting" which isn't the same as "hunting foxes" is banned in UK and there have been persecutions. To my knowledge this article is about "Fox hunting". (3)Please present sources regarding its international status. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * (1) Wikipedia. (2) you probably mean prosecutions, and if you read the article, it explains in detail that some types are banned, and others are not (3) read the article for several excellent references to this. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 19:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

(1)LOL (2)Thanks I do mean prosecutions. (3)Do you want a fork created for the specific type of fox hunting that is banned in the UK and then mark it as Category:Cruelty to animals. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, that would signficantly counterproductive - this article is currently complete, well sourced and well balanced, and forking some details would ultimately reduce the quality of coverage. The answer is not to introduce POV assignations to it.  Also, no convincing case has been made that that the ban on the specific details of the hunt were undertaken for reasons of cruelty - major reports have noted that class tension was probably at least as big a factor. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 14:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It won't be a POV fork, according to you there many ways and reasons for which foxes are killed by humans all over the world, according to you this article represents all/ or many of those ways. There is a specific killing method which we could call Fox hunting in the United Kingdom which has been banned and there have been prosecutions, despite votaries who consider it an honourable British custom: riding in a costume at the head of hounds who then proceed to shred a fox to pieces after it has been pursued to exhaustion. It is just not cricket, the authorities ruled and have banned it. Regarding class tension, would the activity have been banned had it not been about slaughter? Is it perhaps that the British have-nots identify with the foxes and the hunt is a metaphor for their abuse, that they are the foxes and the establishment is the huntsmen, with their apologists being the hounds? "Not for cruelty"! Very imaginative! Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you're on a tangent here. This is about the specific practice of hunting foxes using hounds.  Of this, they have banned the fox being killed by any more than two hounds, however, it is still legal to chase the fox with any number of hounds, and kill it with one or two hounds, with guns, with birds of prey, or any other method.  This is practiced in countries worldwide (and there are several references in the article for this), where it is not banned, but has also been banned in other countries (for instance, one of the first things banned by the Nazi party in 1930s Germany - again with a likely class motive).  The rest of your argument, by virtue of the fact that it includes 'is it perhaps', and 'would', is speculation, and therefore anything deriving from it is WP:OR.  You can read references for the social class case in the article, including within the key report which led to the ban.  You can choose to believe it or not, but it remains within reliable sources, and so can be quoted here. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 08:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yogesh, this is an issue for the animal cruelty category as well, we are not going to go on and on about this topic here. There is no need for content forking, and the category is inherently POV.  Montanabw (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * We need to have an article for the banned practice. The National Socialists were the first to recognise the dangers of smoking and they were the first ones to take action. Now is that used as an argument in the debate? Isn't it strangely innovative that the National Socialists find mention here? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This article covers the holistic topic, including those elements which are banned, and those which are not. You have not presented any convincing case to split them (there is already an article on the Hunting Act wikilinked which covers the specifics), and this would be of detriment to a reader's ability to understand the whole topic in context.  Whilst I was aware of the potential for Godwin's Law, I chose to include that example as the fact remains that it was the first ban on the activity, and was likely to also have had a class motive, which were the two facts under discussion. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 07:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your argument? What I understand is the practice of "fox hunting for pleasure", is banned, in other words if anyone indulges in using hounds etc. to kill foxes for pleasure finds himself indulging in a banned activity. We need an article on that. What is presently allowed as I understand is control of animals considered as pests by killing them. Those who indulge in the activity for "joy" (that they derive from having foxes torn apart by hounds, (the unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable Wilde )) are indulging in a banned activity. This activity needs an article of its own that I propose be created. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In which case, you are mistaken. It is not motivation which is judged or banned, but the methodology of killing the fox.  The article explains it (with more detail in the hunting act article), and i have explained it several times.  The activity that was banned was using more than two dogs to kill the fox.  If you enjoy using two dogs to kill a fox, chase the fox with as many hounds as you like (but don't let them kill it) or if you just want to shoot it for fun, then that is fine. (it is a bit more nuanced than that, but that is pretty much the gist).  The law does not prescribe how the person feels about their activity.  OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 12:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Would you kindly provide evidence from a secondary source? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This is an opinion piece from a pro-hunting writer: "The League Against Cruel Sports now sends people to monitor foxhunts to see that they obey the new laws. There really are some very nasty killjoys in the world, it seems. People are allowed to kill foxes, they are just not allowed to enjoy doing it." (emphasis added) Not a fantastically reliable source though. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Schadenfreud he accuses the opposers of! Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The above quote is Nikolas LLoyd's. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Yogesh Khandke can be defined as an argumentative snowflake. Or maybe just a flake. But, however widely spread the opinion, or however well founded, it is a point of view, and should not be included in the article. 98.182.139.2 (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

French staghounds — relevance?
In the 'Procedure' section there is an image of a French staghound pack. This seems out of place, as a) the dogs are staghounds, and b) earlier in the article it is stated that "in France, [fox] hunting tends to take place mainly on a small scale and on foot, with mounted hunts tending to hunt red or roe deer, or wild boar". I didn't want to just go ahead and remove the image, in case it is somehow relevant, although seems not. Anyone know? DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Fox Hunting in Automobiles
Time Magazine from March 1923 (Issue Number 1) talks about fox hunting in automobiles in the UK. From page 25:

"Fox hunting by motor car has become popular in England. Of course, the automobiles cannot follow the mounted hunters across country. But by their speed they are able to head them off by keeping to the road."

Jeffrey Walton (talk) 04:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Fox hunting is currently banned in England, so what you’re describing must be the use of vehicles to enable illegal hunting. Difficult to know how this could be incorporated into the article, but it would need reliable references. Obscurasky (talk) 10:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Sourcing
See recent edits including today. user:Obscurasky, you have edited long enough to know how to use sources so I will respectfully say this once. The Telegraph is usually a reliable secondary source of information but that isn't the point here. If it quotes what somebody else says, that quote is a primary source because it is what a person said, it is simply their opinion, it is not the opinion of The Telegraph, the RSS. If The Telegraph comments on that quote as if it is factually correct, that comment is a secondary source, but the original quote is not. In this situation, The Telegraph is not commenting on what the MP said, it is merely repeating what was said. If you want to use that quote, you have to write something like "Mrs XYZ said ********" and even then you have to be careful to make it clear that what was said is only somebody's or your unqualified primary opinion (both original research) and is not fact coming from of a secondary source. I suggest you stop edit warring, engage on this talk page or leave be and move on. Proper use of and understanding of sources is a bottom line fundamental part of Wikipedia. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC)


 * It's difficult to follow your argument, and it isn't helped by your peppering of it with condescending remarks; "you have edited long enough to know how to use sources", "I will respectfully say this once", "Proper use of and understanding of sources is a bottom line fundamental part of Wikipedia"'. Also, this is not an edit war.


 * You made it clear in your edit summaries that the point of your edits was the question of primary/secondary sources, now you're saying that isn't the point? No matter, what I would say is that the source (Telegraph) refers to a hunt supporter making the statement, not a hunt itself, and I have therefore adjusted the article text accordingly. If you're still unhappy, please feel free to say so in an uncondescending fashion. Obscurasky (talk) 13:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Condescension is my middle name. Please read my post again. What "is not the point", is whether of not The Telegraph is a reliable source, it is. What is the point is that the quote in The Telegraph you are using is not secondary, it is primary. All The Telegraph is doing is passing over what somebody said. It is not acting as a secondary source. On this occasion it is acting as a sort of transfer agent, transferring the personal opinion of the MP to the reader. When acting as a secondary source The Telegraph is reliable, but when acting as a transferor of a primary source, as here, it is not a secondary source, so its reliability when it is acting as a secondary source is not the point. That is quite clear in my previous post, is it not? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)